Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;John Anthony, post: 1705833, member: 42773&quot;]<b>Meshorer and issues of morphology</b></p><p><br /></p><p>Now that I have Meshorer&#039;s <i>Nabataean Coins </i>in hand, I&#039;ve compared every piece of Aretas II in my collection with his typological classification. I&#039;ve also tried to attribute every coin I could find on the web, and couple of questions have come up, which I think require a refinement of the morphology.</p><p><br /></p><p>Meshorer starts with two types that exhibit Athena on the obverse and Nike on the reverse. Type 1 includes the symbol Λ with a crescent above it on the reverse.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://postimage.org/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://s22.postimg.org/9cusqtljl/image.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></a></p><p><br /></p><p>Type 1A is the same, but without the symbols.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://postimage.org/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://s24.postimg.org/yr88jwoyt/image.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></a></p><p><br /></p><p>This much is clear, but when he gets to type 2, things get a bit muddy. His description of type 2 is as follows:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The following examples probably fit into type 2. In addition to the debased weights and irregular flans, they also tend to be struck considerably off-center.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://postimage.org/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://s15.postimg.org/jkwylbcvf/image.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></a></p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://postimage.org/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://s11.postimg.org/p8jeq1i2r/image.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></a></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The problem with the criteria for this class is that you can find a number of coins that are indeed struck on irregular flans, and could be called stylistically careless, but which are not debased in size and weight in the least. In fact, they are larger than some of the finer examples of 1 and 1A.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://postimage.org/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://s22.postimg.org/jafxe45sh/image.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></a></p><p><br /></p><p>All of which raises a question of classification. Meshorer doesn&#039;t specify what he considers to be a debased weight, but three of the examples he cites in the British Museum have weights under 2.5 grams. The fourth weighs 3.26 grams, but nevertheless exhibits the &quot;careless style&quot; he associates with type 2.</p><p><br /></p><p>This seems a bit vague. The lack of detail on these coins could just be circulation wear. And where do you draw the line between distinct types and stylistic differences (or just plain skill) between different engravers? Also, perhaps weight shouldn&#039;t be a consideration in their classification unless a majority of them are found to be debased, and the occasional large one is just a fluke...[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in